Is the Bible Contradictory?
By no means am I an expert on the bible.
Isn't it funny how we all feel pressured to "disclaim" anything beforehand? Maybe because we might offend someone? What is an "expert" on the bible? Someone who can read Hebrew and Greek? Well, with my Interlinear, I can do that. Does being able to read the original make them an expert? Maybe an "expert" is someone who can translate the bible from the original to English. Well, with my Interlinear and Concordance/Dictionary, I can do that. Does being able to say such a word translates to such a word make someone an expert? Maybe an "expert" is someone who has a degree in Bible Studies (reading the bible). Well, I have not just four or six years of reading the Bible, but over twenty. Twenty years is five times what it takes to get a paper from someone else declaring I have studied the Bible, which is more than a lot of people and less than others.
So maybe I am an expert. Know what I think? We place too much emphasis on legitimizing things by calling on "experts" who know little or nothing and are just monkeys, anyway.
THE BIBLE. How far this Christian country has fallen to sit passively by while our religion and heritage are maligned by the likes of the ACLU. Is there any organization more consumed by hate and pettiness? Instead of making myself bitter about America's most destructive element, I'll use the term "many," and rightly so, because not all biblical detractors are from the ACLU. Or members of. Or supporters of.
Many believe that the Bible is full of contradictions and interpretation subject to the whim of the reader. I can tell you that such claims are uninformed, baseless, and wrong. Many make these kind of claims to set themselves apart as smarter than God. They don't believe in God and think that religion is for dumb people. So they apply this thinking to their relations with others. Only "smart" people have risen above believing in foolish religion. They claim religion is a crutch. When you hear that word, know that the user believes he is far more intelligent than anyone who believes in religion. In their narcissistic desire to prove their intelligence to others, they make claims about the Bible that only prove their ignorance.
COMMON CLAIM: "The Bible was written by man and is full of errors." This one is the most ignorant. The idea is that the Bible is just a collection of writings from different men who didn't know what they were talking about. As a book, it is remarkable for a history text. Archaeological digs take place for one of two reasons: 1, to prove something, or 2, to discover something. In biblical archaeology, diggers are typically trying to disprove the bible and thus confirm their own delusions of intelligence. Over the years, I have been pleased to note a trend: biblical archaeology totally confounds the diggers by validating what is written in the bible. As a general example, certain "intellectuals" were claiming the Bible was full of crap because it claims that the mountain settlements had particular customs that related to foreign influence (at a certain period of time). The "intellectuals" laughed at the Bible and stated firmly with all their experience and degrees that said foreign influence was impossible because the foreigners only ever settled in the coastal areas, and never the mountains. Know what the mountain digs turned up? Very damning evidence that proved the Bible record and totally destroyed the "conventional wisdom" of the eggheads. I read through several issues of Biblical Archaeology Review (staffed by people who think the Bible is dumb) and laughed at the sputtering indignation of the eggheads as they scrambled to alternately smear the character of the dig-director or just ignore the evidence and continue to make their claims. The Bible is not only a precise history book, but it also keeps getting validated by science. I've read so many articles over the years about just this type of discovery that it rather bores me now.
COMMON CLAIM: "The Bible is full of contradictions." No it ain't. This is the second-most heard "elitist" claim that only serves to paint the claimer as an ignoramus. I've had so many "contradictions" thrown at me during the years and not a single one stands up to the scrutiny of a single reading. If you read the Bible in context, there are no contradictions. In other words, you can't just take half a sentence, compare it to another and then claim a contradiction. Most of these ridiculous claims that are supposed to totally destroy religion are like taking the words of some heathen king: "go slay the Israelites," and then quoting "thou shall not kill." Only a moron would use that kind of example, but I've heard it many times. I'll spend a minute on killing, because it is the most common contradiction offered. We all know "thou shall not kill." There is also the famous passage about "a time to kill" and its use pertaining to war. On the surface, there is a contradiction. But anyone who knows the Hebrew will automatically see no contradiction. In the Hebrew, the word used for "thou shall not kill" is specifically "thou shall not murder." In the Hebrew, there is a difference between killing in war, and pre-meditated, evil, murder. I could care less that the eggheads claim intellectual superiority by claiming in our western thought that killing is killing without regards to intent. The HEBREWS had two different views of killing and that is what was written. Just because the idea conflicts with the elitism of the eggheads does not mean there is a contradiction. There is none in the Hebrew, period. To apply subjective opinion to the intent by ignoring the facts of translation is... well, really dumb.
UNCOMMON CLAIM: "The Bible is a collection of works chosen from among other inconsistent works." This is the one more rarely used by people who have at least studied the history of the Bible. It's still wrong. What they mean is that there are at least ten Gospels of Joe and the Bible people in 400ad picked version three, but version three doesn't match the other nine versions. On the surface, it's a good argument and worth looking at. Without a doubt, the greatest discovery to questioning man was the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only did the contents confirm the Torah (some of the Old Testament), but also showed that after thousands of years, not a single word was left out or out of place in the biblical texts. "Intelligent" mankind of today's journalistic stripe cannot go five minutes without leaving out or changing quotes and text to suit their message. In regards to the New Testament and the "Gospels of Joe" example, every single instance I read concerns later versions not agreeing with the earliest versions. Well, who cares? The earliest versions made it into the Bible and are probably just as "protected" by God as the Dead Sea Scrolls proved the Old Testament was. Only one example was troubling, but the honest scoffer/scholar had to admit something later. In his point, one particular new testament book showed the addition of a verse found in a later version. One might think that when the Old Latin (first version of the bible) was printed before 200ad, that they had in fact added something to what was supposed to be inspired. But the scholar shoots himself in the foot by admitting that researchers found an even earlier copy of the particular book than the previously believed "earliest" copy and golly-gee, there was the supposed added verse. So, the Bible has not had anything added to it from the original manuscripts to the earliest translations. In a confusing twist of elitist logic, the fact that the earliest manuscript contains a passage, the next manuscript (that wasn't used to make the Bible) dated later leaves it out, but the passage makes it in to the earliest known version of the Bible is somehow supposed to prove that the Bible is inconsistent. Wishful thinking.
UNCOMMON CLAIM: "Every Bible says different things, thus, the Bible cannot be trusted." This is nothing more than the last-gasp whine of someone desperately trying to make themselves appear more intelligent than God. Of course all the Bibles say different things - they're translations. If you want to read different translations and compare them and then claim contradictions, fine. But those contradictions aren't found in the original Hebrew and Greek. The worst Bible to read: the Amplified Version. The best: King James Version. In the KJV, the translators kept the most exact word-for-word translation of the Hebrew/Greek into English found anywhere. The words printed in italics in the KJV are inserted by the translators and are extraneous to the original. However, to make the text flow in proper English grammar, the translators inserted articles and prepositions where needed as the Hebrew and Greek did not grammatically require such due to the structures of their language. Ever read the original Greek? Ever read the orignal Hebrew - backwards? Word for word? It's tough to equate absolute direct translations of words from one language to another. Sentence structure is different.
MY COUNTER: "There isn't a single contradiction found anywhere in the Bible when it is read in context." They just don't exist.
I'm going to wrap up by quoting a verse. It is the only reason I've delved into this subject, at all, and serves to brace and illuminate all of my subsequent religious topics.
"All scripture is ("is" - added by the translators) given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." 2Tim3:16
That means, God told man to write it, and His word IS.